Find Nearby Plumbers In Duluth, Minnesota

Two of the three reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, flexibility, knowledge, and completed work on a new bathroom and a plumbing repair. However, the third review is a detailed and credible 1-star account describing months of failed HVAC troubleshooting, unresolved heating and cooling issues, and nearly $3,000 in charges with no working outcome — a serious drag on all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately because two reviewers praised communication and attitude, but the negative review describes technicians who lacked the expertise to diagnose the problem and one who openly admitted unfamiliarity with the system. Project completion is significantly impacted by the negative review, which describes an entirely abandoned and unresolved job. Experience is mixed: strong for standard plumbing work but clearly limited for specialized geothermal HVAC systems based on the detailed negative account.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with caution.
• The two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2024 respectively; the negative review is also from 2022. No strong recency skew detected, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.
• The negative review is highly detailed and specific (dates, dollar amounts, technician statements, system type), lending it strong credibility. It should not be dismissed as an outlier.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Nistler's competency appears to vary significantly by service type — standard plumbing appears solid, but geothermal HVAC troubleshooting is flagged as a potential weakness based on available evidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered preliminary and LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision, particularly for HVAC or geothermal work.

Premier Plumbers receives strong praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and affordability in two positive reviews, with one reviewer specifically highlighting weekend availability and another noting accurate, honest pricing and clean workmanship. However, the single 1-star review is a serious drag on the score — it describes a recurring pipe leak following the original job, three separate failures, and a refusal or inability to return for over a month to correct their own work. Project completion is the most heavily weighted dimension and is significantly penalized by this documented failure to follow through on a callback. With only three reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low and the score should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• The 1-star review (2019) documents a clear project completion failure: pipes leaked three times after the original job and the contractor was unavailable for a month to correct their own work — this is a significant red flag.
• The two positive reviews use somewhat generic praise language ('go above and beyond,' 'premier plumbers') with limited specific detail, though they do include some concrete examples (hot water heater installation, weekend response) which reduces fake review concern.
• Recency note: The 1-star review is from 2019, which is over 4 years before the most recent review. The two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2023. The older negative review is given slightly reduced weight but is still factored in as it describes a serious service failure.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality.

ASP's reviews reveal a deeply inconsistent operation with serious recurring problems across all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by multiple documented instances of no-shows, broken appointments, dishonest dispatchers, and at least one racially discriminatory service refusal — partially offset by individual technicians (Wade, Zack, Reid, Caleb) who were praised for friendliness and communication. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges as excessive, a bait-and-switch quote increase, and one reviewer finding a competitor who completed the same job for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is the weakest area in practice, with abandoned jobs, water damage caused by incomplete work, flooded rooms from new installs, and repeated scheduling failures — though some reviewers did report jobs completed satisfactorily. Experience scores moderately, as individual technicians demonstrated solid technical knowledge in several reviews, but serious workmanship failures (toilet plumbing in the wrong room, uncapped water lines causing flooding, misdiagnosis of furnace issues) prevent a higher score.

• One review (After Hours Heating, 2024-03-27) appears to reference a completely different company ('After Hours Heating') and does not mention ASP at all — this review was excluded from scoring as it is likely misattributed or a fake/planted review.
• One review (Summit Mechanical, 2019-05-21) references 'Summit Mechanical' and not ASP — this review was also excluded as misattributed and not relevant to ASP's scoring.
• The edited 5-star review (2021-03-16) originally described serious misconduct and was only upgraded to 5 stars after a refund and apology — the underlying incident (charging customer to fix their own mistake, weeks of non-response) was treated as a negative data point in scoring despite the final star rating.
• Several reviews span from 2018 to 2024, meaning older reviews (pre-2022) were given reduced weight per recency rules. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same systemic problems, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• No clear fake review patterns detected among the remaining reviews, though the two misattributed reviews noted above are suspicious in origin.

This WW Score is based on 20 usable, relevant reviews spanning 2018–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making it a reliable reflection of ASP's performance — the score of approximately 52 accurately captures a contractor with some capable individual technicians but persistent, serious failures in scheduling reliability, pricing transparency, and workmanship accountability.

Advantage Air presents a deeply polarized review profile, with enthusiastic praise from some customers and severe, detailed complaints from others. On the positive side, several reviewers highlight responsive communication, timely arrivals, and smooth installations. However, three significant negative reviews describe serious workmanship failures — including an oversized furnace installation causing mold, a damaged drain tile flooding a basement, and a repeatedly failed hot water heater repair — all compounded by a refusal to acknowledge fault or make things right. Project completion and experience scores are heavily dragged down by these documented failures, which involved confirmed third-party assessments of negligence. The professionalism score reflects a split between courteous staff interactions praised in positive reviews and deeply dismissive, uncompassionate responses to customers in crisis described in negative ones.

• Three of the eight reviews describe serious property damage or health harm directly attributed to Advantage Air's workmanship, with multiple third-party professionals confirming fault in at least two cases — these are high-severity complaints that carry significant weight.
• The positive reviews are generally older (2022) or lack specific technical detail, while the most severe negative reviews span 2022–2023, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time or inconsistency across job types.
• One negative reviewer (furnace install) reports being ignored for 7 months and denied documented communication by the owner — this raises concerns about accountability and dispute resolution practices.
• The septic system damage review (2023) describes Advantage Air refusing to acknowledge fault despite two independent companies confirming their responsibility, which is a significant red flag for customer protection.
• No fake review patterns detected — both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, job types, and contextual detail consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with a meaningful split between detailed positive and severely negative experiences; the score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small sample size, but the three high-severity negative reviews are well-documented and substantially credible, making the lower scores in project completion and experience particularly trustworthy.

The four reviews present a deeply divided picture of Mehrman & Sons. Two negative reviews (1-star) raise serious concerns about professionalism, including poor communication, bad attitude when billing was questioned, and deceptive subcontracting practices with undisclosed markups. Pricing is a recurring red flag, with two reviewers explicitly describing exorbitant or unexplained charges and one alleging outright dishonesty about subcontractor costs. On the positive side, one detailed 5-star review from 2016 describes exceptional responsiveness, coordination, and quality workmanship on an emergency sewer repair, and a brief 2018 review praises speed, politeness, and reasonable pricing. The mixed record, combined with the small sample size and the age of most reviews, significantly limits confidence in any direction.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• All reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from February 2022, and the oldest is from 2015. No recent data is available to assess current service quality.
• Two reviews explicitly allege deceptive billing practices, including undisclosed subcontracting fees and charges with no prior explanation — this is a significant integrity concern.
• The two positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (especially the 2018 review), which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though the 2016 review is detailed and credible.
• The stark 1-star vs 5-star split with no middle-ground ratings may reflect genuinely inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews, but the small sample makes it impossible to determine a reliable pattern.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with no data from the past 12 months, and should be treated as highly unreliable — seek additional recent references before hiring.

The review set is extremely small and spans a wide date range (2014–2015), making any conclusions highly tentative. The most detailed review is a strongly negative one describing persistent unresolved issues including flickering lights, frequent false fire alarms, and a water softener left broken for months without follow-up — all pointing to serious deficiencies in project completion, responsiveness, and workmanship. The first review is moderately positive but notably the job was not completed due to missing parts, which tempers its value. The second review ('Well') provides no usable information whatsoever. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down significantly by the negative review's explicit complaints about repeated failure to return calls and unfinished warranty work.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable; treat as indicative only.
• One review ('Well') contains no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• All reviews are from 2014–2015, meaning this data is approximately 9–10 years old. Current contractor quality is entirely unknown.
• The single negative review is highly detailed and specific, describing multiple failure modes across professionalism, project completion, and experience — this carries significant weight given the small sample size.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — no reviews mentioned cost, value, or quotes in any direction.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the generic 5-star review ('Well') is suspiciously content-free and may not reflect genuine experience.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all over 9 years old, with one containing no usable data — it should be treated with very low confidence and is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality.